Subject: [Sigtran] M2UA related

From: "FCG Jiang Hui" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 16:56:03 +0800

Dear all,

Thanks for your quick reply about my recent questions especially for Brian F. G. Bidulock. But those two questions are always puzzled me, would you mind giving me some ideas?

1. co-existence of SIGTRAN/IUA and SIGTRAN/M2UA

If one MG has already supported SIGTRAN/IUA functionality and we prepare to add M2UA feature for this gateway, What is about the friendly co-existence of SIGTRAN/IUA and SIGTRAN/M2UA in this gateway? What kind of parallel SIGTRAN/IUA and SIGTRAN/M2UA traffic is to support?
1)   - per configuration data the gateway supports only SIGTRAN/IUA or SIGTRAN/M2UA but not both at the same time
2)   - per configuration data the gateway is able to support simultaneously SIGTRAN/IUA and SIGTRAN/M2UA traffic

We are prepare to support sutiation 1) only because I don't know that when and why will we use suituation 2). Your opinions?
2. M2UA Redundancy Requirements
From SS7 network point of vew, MG should be deployed in pairs to provide SS7 link fail over capabilities. The attached file will show you the network architecture for M2UA redundancy. Your suggestions are warmly welcome.

I greatly appreciated your feed back.

Best regards.

Jiang Hui
Tel: +8621-58541240-9542
MAILTO: [email-masked]

 <<m2ua-redundancy-requirement-1.rar>>

---

From: Schwarzbauer Hanns Juergen <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 11:58:48 +0200

Dear Jiang Hui,
 
whether your gateway supports IUA together with M2UA is of no relevance from a protocol point of view, it's purely implementation.
 
However, you should keep in mind that IUA carries DSS1 subscriber signalling whereas M2UA  carries with SS7  a network internal protocol.
Therefore the natural peers for both procols are different:
IUA: call processing
M2UA: SS7 protocol stack
Consequently different SCTP associations seem more then adequate.
 
Not having ready access to a UNIX machine, I couldn't open your attachment.
 
greetings
 
HannsJuergen

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of FCG Jiang Hui
Sent: Monday, May 10, 2004 10:56 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [Sigtran] M2UA related

Dear all, 

Best regards. 

Jiang Hui 
Tel: +8621-58541240-9542

---

From: "Brett Wallis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 08:48:23 -0500

M2UA allows you to terminate a link and backhaul MTP3/MTP3b to the ASP (e.g.
MGC).  SS7 change over thus still runs at the MGC (L3 termination point).
 
I agree that you should ideally spread links in a given linkset across
multiple MGs, so that if one MG fails you haven't lost the entire linkset.
This should be easy for M2UA since the MG is not terminating MTP3/MTP3b.

Brett Wallis 
email: [email-masked] 

-----Original Message-----
From: FCG Jiang Hui [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Monday, May 10, 2004 3:56 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [Sigtran] M2UA related

Dear all, 

Thanks for your quick reply about my recent questions especially for Brian
F. G. Bidulock. But those two questions are always puzzled me, would you
mind giving me some ideas?

If one MG has already supported SIGTRAN/IUA functionality and we prepare to
add M2UA feature for this gateway, What is about the friendly co-existence
of SIGTRAN/IUA and SIGTRAN/M2UA in this gateway? What kind of parallel
SIGTRAN/IUA and SIGTRAN/M2UA traffic is to support?

1)   - per configuration data the gateway supports only SIGTRAN/IUA or
SIGTRAN/M2UA but not both at the same time 
2)   - per configuration data the gateway is able to support simultaneously
SIGTRAN/IUA and SIGTRAN/M2UA traffic 

We are prepare to support sutiation 1) only because I don't know that when
and why will we use suituation 2). Your opinions?

2. M2UA Redundancy Requirements 
From SS7 network point of vew, MG should be deployed in pairs to provide SS7
link fail over capabilities. The attached file will show you the network
architecture for M2UA redundancy. Your suggestions are warmly welcome.

Best regards. 

Jiang Hui 
Tel: +8621-58541240-9542

---

From: "Brian F. G. Bidulock" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 16:14:32 -0600

Jiang,

Please avoid sending mime mail and large attachments to the WG list.

I think that you should be considering M2PA instead of M2UA.

--brian

FCG Jiang Hui wrote:                             (Mon, 10 May 2004 16:27:05)
> 
>    Dear all,
> 
>    Thanks  for  your quick reply about my recent questions especially for
>    Brian  F.  G. Bidulock. But those two questions are always puzzled me,
>    would you mind giving me some ideas?
> 
>    If  one  MG  has  already  supported  SIGTRAN/IUA functionality and we
>    prepare  to  add  M2UA  feature  for  this  gateway, What is about the
>    friendly co-existence of SIGTRAN/IUA and SIGTRAN/M2UA in this gateway?
>    What  kind  of  parallel  SIGTRAN/IUA  and  SIGTRAN/M2UA traffic is to
>    support?
> 
>    2)    -  per  configuration  data  the  gateway  is  able  to  support
>    simultaneously SIGTRAN/IUA and SIGTRAN/M2UA traffic
> 
>    We  are prepare to support sutiation 1) only because I don't know that
>    when and why will we use suituation 2). Your opinions?
> 
>    From  SS7  network  point  of  vew,  MG should be deployed in pairs to
>    provide  SS7  link fail over capabilities. The attached file will show
>    you the network architecture for M2UA redundancy. Your suggestions are
>    warmly welcome.
> 
>    <<m2ua-redundancy-requirement-1.doc>>

-- 
Brian F. G. Bidulock
[email-masked]
http://www.openss7.org/

_______________________________________________
Sigtran mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sigtran